The monument has been described an enclosure, although there is no evidence of a fourth side to the ESE. The enclosure aligns on a point just to the north of the summit of a knoll to the east and generally towards the recently excavated settlement site at Chapelfield, Cowie, 2 km away. There may be no significance in either observation.
If constructed as an enclosure rather than an accumulation of pits, it is necessary to assume that all of the 50 pits had a Phase 1 although in some pits with Phase 2 activity no evidence for Phase 1 survived. In addition, one pit (P14) appears to have only one phase. The apparent segmentation of the enclosure boundary suggested by the short stretches of pits indicates that it was constructed in segments, possibly over a prolonged period of time. This is not unusual for rectilinear monuments of Neolithic date although details of construction differ. On a different scale, a cursus monument/bank barrow known as the Cleaven Dyke, near Blairgowrie in Perthshire, appears to have been constructed in both large and small segments with between two and five deliberate gaps in the central bank, the larger sections being constructed as linked dumps (Barclay et al 1995, Barclay & Maxwell 1995). A ditch-defined rectilinear enclosure at Dorchester, cut by the ditch of a cursus, had four breaks in the ditch in the areas excavated (Whittle et al 1992, 149, Fig 4) and, at the same site and apparently incorporated into the cursus, a larger D-shaped enclosure had a causewayed ditch (ibid, 153-4, Fig 7 and 156, Fig 9).
Nothing was recovered to indicate a function for the Phase 1 pits. The artefacts assigned to the phase are from insecure contexts or have no recorded fill-identifier and must, therefore, be treated with caution. No carbonised seeds were found in the macroplant samples. In short, it would appear that the pits were excavated then left to weather and fill up. The source of the material is not clear. While some of the silting deposits clearly originated in the sides of the pits, the depth of the fills suggest that another source must be identified. If the rest of the material, or a significant proportion of it, derived from the original spoil, then it must have been dumped close to the edge of the pits. The pattern of deposition of the fills did not indicate where the spoil was dumped but, as Tavener suggests, several years must have passed before the pits had re-filled (1987, 71). Although Reynolds (1977, 35) notes that an experimental pit excavated in 1972 in chalk at Butser had accumulated no deposits after five years this author`s own observations in Stirlingshire suggest that features cut through gravel can accumulate fills very quickly.
The lack of cultural material in the Phase 1 deposits, however, indicates that little or no activity of the sort that would produce artefacts or carbonised material was taking place in the area. This, of course, does not preclude the site from having been used for activities other than the construction of the pits. Rather, there is no evidence within the pits of material that might be interpreted as the result of domestic activity. It is even possible that, before they were allowed to silt up, they were kept clean and free from 'polluting' material.
Sherratt (1991, 50) suggests that Neolithic 'ritual pits' may have been used for the disposal of ritually significant but inedible parts from sacrifices, material which would not have survived in the soils at Bannockburn. Such pits might also have been kept free from non-ritual material. If this was the case, however, any domestic-type material in the immediate vicinity is likely to have found its way into the pits after abandonment. It is possible, therefore, that, whatever the reason for the construction of the pits, there was little or no occupation material on the site before, during, or for some time after they had served their designed function.
If, as seems likely, Enclosure 1 was originally constructed as an enclosure, rather than an accumulation of pits, even if over a long period, it is possible that it was created as a marker or boundary for an area of activity inside or outside it or, alternatively to north or south of the monument. It is worth noting here that the large gap between pits P48 and P49, taken with the outlier pits P51 and P52, could be interpreted as an entrance.
It is unlikely that the Phase 1 pits were originally post-holes. Despite the fact that Phase 2 activity would have removed traces of post-pipes or evidence of removed posts, the single phase pit P14 contained no such evidence and the surviving Phase 1 deposits appeared to the excavators to be silting rather than deliberate dumping. It could be argued that the Phase 2 evidence indicates the presence of posts, and this will be discussed below. It is possible, therefore, that when Phase 1 was completed, after all of the pits had been excavated and remained as empty or substantially empty pits, that it resembled the segmented embanked pit-alignments in the North York Moors which have low segmented banks either outside or inside the lines of pits (Lofthouse 1993).
It seems likely that the scatter of small pits in the south-west corner of Enclosure 1, and possibly some of the larger ones such as the `outlier' pits to the south and south-west and pit P59, represent activity of some sort between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Described by the excavator as stake-holes and small post-holes (Tavener 1987, 72) their function is obscure. Features interpreted as stake-holes also, however, formed part of houses at the settlement site at Chapelfield, Cowie (Atkinson 1995) and given the shallowness of the trench or ditch elements of the houses it is conceivable that, at Bannockburn, similar features have been removed by erosion. The fact that one of the post-holes cuts Phase 1 and is cut by Phase 2 of pit P38 and another possibly cuts Phase 1 of P36 suggests that such a tight grouping of features belong to the same period. If they are the result of domestic activity as suggested by Trevor Cowie (Neolithic pottery report in Rideout forthcoming), a number of questions arise. If the Phase 1 pits had a ritual significance, was apparently mundane activity allowed to empinge on the remains of the monument? If the pits of the enclosure had filled up, and if they were not post-pits, how were they identified by those responsible for Phase 2?
It is possible that, although domestic in origin and appearance, the activity was in some way related to the continuing, if changing, function of the monument. The relatively large number of flaked stone from these small features is noteworthy. As has been noted before, 'The idea that ritual corresponds entirely to religion is incorrect' (Richards & Thomas 1984, 214). Equally, the apparently mundane can be inserted into a ritual context. Thus, it is possible that the two small features cutting pits P36 and P38 were markers, possibly inserted before the original pits disappeared entirely, and that other such markers were either not seen by the archaeological excavators or were removed by the Phase 2 activity. The possibly domestic activity may have been seen by the builders as a necessary part of the use of the monument, possibly as a source of material to be used in the next stage, the Phase 2 re-cutting of most of the pits.
Enough of the excavated pits showed that stone, and possibly some timber, lining was inserted in deliberate re-cuts. In some cases, it was obvious that deep, near-vertical cuts were made into the fills of the Phase 1 pits, which were lined with stones set in a matrix of soil clearly differentiated from the Phase 1 fills. This is not what would be expected if Phase 2 represented the insertion of large timber uprights with stones using as part of the packing medium. Where post-pits have been excavated, and where stone has been used as packing, as at Meldon Bridge, the stone is surrounded by dumped re-deposited soil (Burgess 1976, 164 Fig 9.4). The same sections clearly showed post-pipes and upper weathering cones. In addition, the larger post-pits at Meldon Bridge, of similar size to those in Bannockburn Enclosure 1, as well as post-pits on henge monuments like North Mains, Strathallan, have ramps to facilitate the insertion of the posts (ibid, 159 Fig 9.3; Barclay 1983a, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 to Fig 9). It is noteworthy that the smaller post-pits at Meldon Bridge, which held posts of smaller diameter, showed no sign of ramps. None of the pits at Bannockburn exhibited the 'heart-shaped' fills, the result of posts rotting in situ seen in many post-pits (Reynolds & Barber 1984, 99, 101 Fig 1). Although superficially similar in section to the Bannockburn pits, the 'external shafts' at Milfield North henge, Northumberland (Harding 1981, 101-5, Fig 13) do not display the same pattern of sedimentation.
The possibility that posts may have been deliberately removed must be considered. However, while it is possible that posts had been positioned in the Phase 2 pits, and the presence of burnt material in the bottom of the pits could be seen as similar to that found dumped into some of the post-pits at Meldon Bridge (op cit), it is clear from the surviving lining in pits P45 and P18 (illus 7 and illus 8 respectively) that the timbers would have been massive - almost 1 m in diameter. There is no evidence of the level of disturbance to both stone lining and the upper packing fills if posts that could be suspected had been removed. Illus 7 and illus 8 also clearly illustrate the level of care used in the insertion of the stones, in some pits at least, which would not be necessary in post packing. It is, therefore, suggested that Phase 2 involved the recutting of most of the pits, the insertion of stone or timber lining and the use of the resulting space for some purpose other than the erection of posts.
Attempts to address the function of earlier Neolithic pits have been made using reference to shape, profile, fill patterns and other obvious attributes, mostly without success and Reynolds advocated a more careful response and noted that `...a pit is a structure and consequently deserves minute examination and recording of its walls, floor, shape and capacity' (1977, 35). Leaving aside for a moment the fact that most of the pits at Bannockburn are in an apparently carefully planned configuration, unlike most of those which have been described in the past, it is worth examining the various options for Phase 1 and Phase 2.
The possibility that they are post-pits has already been rejected. Other possibilities suggested by the excavators include storage pits, storage vats, open or closed smoking pits, and rubbish pits. Pits with profiles like the better preserved (ie deeper) Phase 1and Phase 2 pits have often been assumed to be for storage, with grain storage firmly in mind. Experiments with grain storage have proved of limited success (Bowen & Wood 1967, Reynolds 1974 and 1977) but, as is made clear in the distribution map (admittedly now out of date) by Field et al (1964, 368 Fig 7), this is only likely to have been possible on chalk sites. Even on chalk sites, a lining was assumed to be necessary (see Bowen & Wood 1967, Plate 1a). Although lining was present at Bannockburn there was little evidence of stones on the pit floors and, unless much of it was removed before the pits filled up, it would have been insufficient to act as a seal between the contents and the damp, even wet, surrounding soils. The apparent lack of complete lining makes unlikely the possibility that they were vats to store wet foodstuffs, an idea explored by Evans (1982). The presence of burnt material at the bottom of the Phase 2 pits but the absence of carbonised grain also tends to indicate that storage was not the intention here. However, two pits at Easterton of Roseisle appear to be the closest parallels to Bannockburn Phase 2 pits although illustrations to confirm this are lacking (Young 1896a and 1896b, reviewed by Walker 1968). Young originally interpreted the stone-lined pits, c 1.5 m diameter and c 1.5 m deep and containing charcoal, wood ash and pottery, as cremation pits (1896a) but later suggested that they were storage pits under timber superstructures (1896b, 241). Given the layout of the pits, and possible interpretations of the monument as a whole, this is unlikely to have been the case at Bannockburn. A possible funerary function was attributed to another, although later, feature superficially similar to Phase 2 - the large pit inside the Milfield South henge, Northumberland (Harding 1981, 95-9). The pit contained a rectangular stone setting like many at Bannockburn but had been cut by a large, apparently ramped pit, identified as a post-pit (ibid, 98 Fig 7).
It is also hard to imagine how the pits could be used for smoking food particularly if they were closed. The problem would be one of air supply, and regulation of the air supply, to achieve the conditions necessary to produce smoke for the process. It would be expected that a vent would be supplied if this was to be successful. During the excavation, however, it was proved that a fire could be sustained in the pits. In 1985, one of the pits fully excavated in 1984 (pit P17) was used for an experiment where a rough stone lining and till subsoil was inserted and a fire started using twigs, small branches, a small log and some turf. The fire burned slowly for two and a half days and most of the material (c 5 kg but not the turf) was consumed leaving some charcoal but no signs of burning on the stones. If material for smoking had been in position over the pit, the air supply would have been reduced, possibly to the extent that the fire would be extinguished. It is, however, possible that they were used as cooking pits although, again, the lack of carbonised cereal or burnt bone, could indicate that this was not the case (see Barclay 1983b, 64; Rideout 1995) although the disposal of organic solids or liquids which would leave no trace cannot be ruled out. However, it is also possible that the apparent ritual nature of the site may suggest that any food cooked or accidentally charred or burnt would be removed from the pits.
By contrast, burial of rubbish, or material normally assumed to be rubbish, is possible but unlikely unless the burial involved ritual. It would seem un-necessary for pits to be prepared carefully, and have linings inserted, if ordinary rubbish disposal was the intention. It is, however, possible that disposal of waste, whether done in ritual or mundane manner, was a re-use of the Phase 2 pits. Wainwright interpreted alternating deposits of 'black ashy material' and clean gravel in pit 44 at Broome Heath as 'disposal of rubbish' in a final use of a timber-lined storage pit (1974, 17 Fig 12). At Bannockburn, however, although more than one layer of charcoal-rich material is present in some of the Phase 2 pits, many exhibited signs of burning in situ on, or very near, the bases, suggesting that, as at Balfarg, simple waste disposal was not the function (Barclay & Russell-White1993, 166-7). As Kinnes notes 'The purpose of the pit.....appears to be for placement not for functional storage or tidy-minded refuse disposal' (1994, 96).
In summary, although it is difficult to identify a function for the Phase 2 pits, it is possible that, as with Phase 1, creation of space within which some form of activity was carried out was more important than the creation of a pit as a receptacle for something, at least in its initial use. It is also possible that this activity took place both within the pit-space and inside or outside the area defined by the pit enclosure. It is unlikely that they were post-holes, storage pits, smoking pits or pits deliberately designed to hold waste.
Whatever the function of the Phase 2 pits, they filled with, or were filled by, deposits which were more topsoil-like than the earlier deposits. Of the Neolithic pottery from the pits, most came from upper Phase 2 or Phase 3 deposits. On other sites, deliberate deposition of pottery in pit fills has been suggested, as in the Early Neolithic pits at Balfarg, Fife (Barclay & Russell-White 1993, 166-7), at Littleour, Perthshire (Barclay & Maxwell 1996) and may also be the case with pit FAE on Site F (a group of pits and smaller features) at Douglasmuir, Angus where pottery was found on top of a stone in the top of the pit (Kendrick 1995, 35 and illus 6, 37). Whittle (1988, 55), among others commenting on the presence of pottery in structured deposition in Neolithic pits, draws attention to the large quantities of potsherds from some of the pits at Broome Heath. At Bannockburn, however, the number of sherds involved, thirteen in total, is small and it is difficult, therefore, to say how much attention should be paid to their presence.
Tavener noted that it was unclear whether Phase 3 was a deliberate activity or simply the final deposits in Phase 2 (1987, 72). Certainly in some of the pits where a Phase 3 is a possibility, the latter interpretation could be correct but in others, such as pit P38 where the cut for Phase 3 is both steep and deep, this is patently not the case. It is also worth noting that some pits have Phase 3 activity but no Phase 2 (and some have activity that is either Phase 2 or Phase 3). It is, therefore, possible that the type of activity represented by Phase 3 was similar to that represented by Phase 2 and that the two are simply different manifestations of the same continuing activity on the site. Why this should be done in some pits but not others is unclear.
It is clear from the evidence that activity was taking place at Bannockburn which can be identified with the concept of structured deposition. What is unusual here is that the pits not only show evidence of 'ritual' use but that they also combine to form a distinct shape in plan. Previously identified sites with structured or deliberate deposition of material have contained isolated pits or groups of pits with no apparent pattern. While the lack of pattern may be the results of the constraints on the areas excavated such as at Hillend, Clydesdale where one of three pits had been recut and contained pottery (Armit et al 1994, 116-7, illus 3 and illus 4) or at North Carnaby Temple, Yorkshire (Manby 1974, 37-43) it is noticeable that none are from rectilinear pit-defined enclosures. They do, however, appear in different configurations elsewhere. The 'external shafts' at Milfield North henge, Northumberland formed a ring around the henge (Harding 1981, 101-5, Fig 12); similarly, an arc, or part of a ring, of Early Neolithic pits surrounded the stone circle at Cairnwell, Aberdeenshire (John Barber and Thomas Rees, pers comm). Both are later in date than Bannockburn.
In plan, Enclosure 1 resembles, although on a larger scale, the similarly-dated (3622-3111 cal BC (GU-4380)) structure at Littleour, Angus (Barclay & Maxwell 1995 and 1996) and the later Structure 1 and Structure 2 at Balfarg, Fife (Barclay & Russell-White 1993) . The Balfarg structures are dated by three radiocarbon dates calibrated to the last quarter of the fourth millennium to mid-third millennium BC (ibid, 161).
Unlike Enclosure 1, both are defined by post-holes. The bow-ended forms are reminiscent of ditched enclosures and pre-long barrow features elsewhere (see comparative plans in Loveday 1989, 65 Fig 4:9) and it is possible, as hypothesised by the excavators at Bannockburn, that Enclosure 1 had a funerary function. Again, this could have been within the pits or within the enclosure. Barclay's preferred interpretation of the rectilinear timber structures at Balfarg was that they may have been enclosures around excarnation platforms, as part of the mortuary structure tradition (Barclay & Russell-White 1993, 169-82). It is possible that Bannockburn Enclosure 1 had a similar function and that the internal features have been removed by ploughing. Any post-holes or pits of no great depth which had existed in the centre of the enclosure, on top of the low ridge, are likely to have been seriously eroded. The miscellaneous features in the south-west may appear to have survived because they were some way off the top of the ridge and may themselves be merely the last vestiges of much deeper features. An alternative, highly speculative, interpretation is that the Phase 1 pits were used for excarnation or temporary burial, the bodies decomposing either with or without any covering of soil, or even organic matter, before being removed to final resting places.
Further discussion of the enclosure is hindered by the lack of information about the full extent of the monument. It is possible that there was no eastern end, and the site was similar to the U-shaped enclosure at Barford (Loveday 1989, 53 Fig 4:2), or that the eastern end was no great distance to the east of Area 1 and mirrored the western end, resembling the structures at Balfarg and Littleour in proportion (op cit). It is even possible, though perhaps less likely because of the intervening knoll, that the monument was an early cursus of considerably greater length than was visible.
Although the dates from Enclosure 2 are a little later than those from Enclosure 1, it is possible that both were visible, or possibly in use, at the same time perhaps in the form of a barrier which directed movement from north to south through the 10 m gap between them. Like Enclosure 1, the extent of Enclosure 2 is uncertain but it is possible that the western end was somewhere near the valley, which formerly existed as a much more pronounced feature, no great distance to the west and south-west. If so, the enclosure would have been about 110 m to 120 m in length. It was also observed that the two sides of the enclosure were not parallel, and it is possible that the intention was to create a trapezoidal enclosure (if the sides continued on their courses, they would meet c 400 m from the east end).
With a length of at least 90 m and a maximum width of 27.5 m, Enclosure 2 is larger than the comparable, and similarly-dated (three dates giving a calibrated range of 3930-3390 cal BC) post-defined enclosure at Douglasmuir, Angus (Kendrick 1995), which was c 65 m by c 20 m, but not as long as other similar sites in eastern Scotland known from aerial photographs (eg the Balneaves cursus, near Douglasmuir (Maxwell 1978, 41 Plate XIX) or the ditched cursus at Blairhall, Perthshire (RCAHMS 1994, Fig 17c)). Also smaller than Enclosure 2 is the long mortuary enclosure at Inchtuthil, Perthshire (Barclay & Maxwell 1991, 34 illus 7). Douglasmuir and Balneaves, and possibly Blairhall, have single transverse divisions, features not apparent at Bannockburn. It is possible, however, because of the fragmentary nature of the enclosure or the positioning of the trenches, that such internal divisions were either missed or have been removed by ploughing. Another possibility is that the apparent internal divisions at Balneaves and Kinalty (see comparative drawings in Barclay 1995) are old terminal lines and that the northern part of Balneaves and the southern part of Kinalty are of similar size to Bannockburn Enclosure 2, Milton of Guthrie 1 and 2, Angus, and Bennybeg, Perthshire at c 25-30 m wide and c 105-125 m long (Kenny Brophy pers comm). Whatever its final original form or function, it is clear that Enclosure 2, and Enclosure 1, belong to the tradition of Neolithic rectilinear monuments including cursuses and long mortuary enclosures (Loveday & Petchey 1983).
Back to Rideout's Page | Back to Bannockburn Neolithic enclosures | Top of page
Armit, I, Cowie, T & Ralston, I 1994 `Excavation of pits
containing Grooved Ware at Hillend, Clydesdale District, Strathclyde
Region', Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 124 (1994),
113-27.
Atkinson, J A 1995 Excavations at Chapelfield, Cowie. Glasgow.
(=GUARD Interim Report
153.2)
Barclay, G J 1983a `Sites of the third millennium bc to the
first millennium ad at North Mains, Strathallan, Perthshire', Proc Soc Antiq
Scot, 113 (1983),
122-283.
Barclay, G J 1983b `The excavation of a settlement of the
later Bronze Age and Iron Age at Myrehead, Falkirk District', Glasgow Archaeol
J, 10 (1983),
41-71.
Barclay, G J 1995 `Discussion', in Kendrick 1995,
36-9.
Barclay, G J & Maxwell, G S 1991 `The excavation of a
Neolithic long mortuary enclosure at Inchtuthil, Perthshire', Proc Soc Antiq
Scot, 121 (1991),
27-44.
Barclay, G J & Maxwell, G S 1995 The Cleaven Dyke Project
1995: Interim Report.
Edinburgh.
Barclay, G J & Maxwell, G S 1996 The Cleaven Dyke Project:
Interim Report on the Excavations at Littleour 1996.
Edinburgh.
Barclay, G J, Maxwell, G S, Simpson, I A & Davidson,
D A 1995 `The Cleaven Dyke: a Neolithic cursus monument/bank barrow in Tayside
Region, Scotland', Antiquity, 69 (1995),
317-26.
Barclay, G J & Russell-White, C J 1993 `Excavations
in the ceremonial complex of the fourth to second millennium BC at
Balfarg/Balbirnie, Glenrothes, Fife' Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 123 (1993),
43-211.
Bowen, H C & Wood, P D 1968 `Experimental storage of
corn underground and its implications for Iron Age settlements', Bull Inst
Archaeol , 7 (1967),
1-14.
Burgess, C B 1976 'Meldon Bridge: a Neolithic defended
promontory complex near Peebles', in Burgess, C B & Miket, R (eds) Settlement
and economy in the third and second millennia BC. Oxford. (= Brit Archaeol
Rep Brit Ser 33).
151-79.
Evans, C 1982 `Whether Pits be Vats: Some Further
Interpretations of Subterranean Features', Bull Inst Archaeol, 19 (1982),
171-6.
Field, N H, Matthews, C L & Smith, I F 1964 `New Neolithic
sites in Dorset and Bedfordshire with a note on the distribution of Neolithic
storage pits in Britain', Proc Prehist Soc, 30 (1964),
352-81.
Harding, A F 1981 `Excavations in the prehistoric ritual
complex near Milfield, Northumberland', Proc Prehist Soc, 47 (1981),
87-135.
Kendrick, J 1995 `Excavation of a Neolithic enclosure and
an Iron Age settlement at Douglasmuir, Angus: summary report', Proc Soc Antiq
Scot, 125 (1995),
29-67.
Kinnes, I A 1994 `The Neolithic in Britain', in B Vyner
(ed) Building on the past, 90-102.
London.
Lofthouse, C A 1993 `Segmented embanked pit-alignments in
the North York Moors: a survey by the Royal Commission on the Historical
Monuments of England', Proc Prehist Soc, 59 (1993),
383-92.
Loveday, R 1989 `The Barford Ritual complex: further excavations
(1972) and a regional perspective', in A Gibson (ed) Midlands Prehistory,
51-84. Oxford. (=Brit Archaeol Rep Brit Ser
204).
Loveday, R & Petchey, M 1983 `Oblong ditches: a discussion
and some new evidence', Aerial Archaeol, 8 (1983),
17-24.
Manby, T G 1974 Grooved Ware sites in the north of England.
Oxford. (=Brit Archaeol Rep Brit Ser
9).
Maxwell, G S 1978 `Air photography and the work of the Royal
Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland', Aerial Archaeol,
2 (1978),
37-44.
Reynolds, N & Barber, J 1984 `Analytical excavation',
Antiquity, 58 (1984),
95-102.
Reynolds, P J 1974 `Experimental Iron Age Storage Pits:
An Interim Report', Proc Prehist Soc, 40 (1974),
118-31.
Reynolds, P J 1977 `Experimental archaeology and the Butser
Ancient Farm Project' in Collis, J (ed) The Iron Age in Britain: a review,
32-40.
Sheffield.
Richards, C C & Thomas, J S 1984 `Ritual activity and
structured deposition in later Neolithic Wessex', in Bradley, R & Gardiner,
J (eds) Neolithic Studies: a Review of Some Current Research, 189-218. Oxford.
(= Brit Archaeol Rep Brit Ser
133).
Rideout forthcoming `Excavation of Neolithic enclosures
at Cowie Road, Bannockburn, Stirlingshire, 1984-5', Proc Soc Antiq Scot,
127 (1997)
....
Rideout 1995 `Carn Dubh, Moulin, Perthshire: survey and
excavation of an archaeological landscape 1987-90', Proc Soc Antiq Scot,
139-95.
RCAHMS 1994 South-East Perth an archaeological landscape.
Edinburgh.
Sherratt, A 1991 `Sacred and profane substances: the ritual
use of narcotics in later Neolithic Europe', in Garwood P, Jennings, D, Skeates,
R & Thoms, J (eds) 1991 Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference
on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion. Oxford 1989, 50-64.
Oxford.
Tavener, N 1987 `Bannockburn: The Pit and Post Alignments
Excavated in 1984 and 1985', Central Excavation Unit and Ancient Monuments
Laboratory Annual Report 1988,
71-6.
Wainwright, G 1974 `The Excavation of a Neolithic Settlement
on Broome Heath, Ditchingham, Norfolk', Proc Prehist Soc, 38 (1972),
1-97.
Walker, I C 1968 `Easterton of Roseisle: a forgotten site
in Moray', in J M Coles & D D A Simpson (eds) Studies in Ancient Europe,
95-115.
Leicester.
Whittle, A W R 1988 Problems in Neolithic Archaeology.
Cambridge.
Whittle, A, Atkinson, R J C, Chambers, R & Thomas, N
1992 `Excavations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age complex at
Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, 1947-1952 and 1981', Proc Prehist Soc,
58 (1992),
143-202.
Young, H W 1896a `Further excavations at Easterton of Roseisle',
Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist, 2 (1896),
39-44.
Young, H W 1896b `Easterton of Roseisle', Reliquary and
Illustrated Archaeologist, 2 (1896),
237-41.
Back to Rideout's Page | Back to Bannockburn Neolithic enclosures| Top of page
Written by J S Rideout
Last updated 14 March 1998